Espionage Aficionados discussion

How important do you think it is for an espionage novel to be completely authentic in all its details? I'm something a of perfectionist myself, but I see lots of other authors who are quite successful in spite of seeming to have no idea regarding some of the topics about which they are writing. Ian Fleming immediately comes to mind when thinking about this topic, but of course there are many other very popular authors whose works are filling with inaccuracies. So, how important is authenticity to you when you are reading an espionage novel?

Question, are you citing Fleming as an example of an author who was inaccurate or accurate?

Opinion: in general I don't care if a novel is factual or not. No one should, really. It matters the most in historical fiction or historical military fiction; and then somewhat in a thriller. But facts are useful only for one purpose anyway: and that is to help convince the reader.

Forsyth could have provided a rich world of 'false facts' for 'Jackal'--but as long as they help convince me as to the texture of Southern France, that's the goal that is served. If some of the detail he provided was actually false--first, I have no way to know; and second ..no, it doesn't matter as long as whatever details he does provide, perform the proper function.

Thomas Harris could have invented many of the technical details in 'Black Sunday'; Tom Clancy could have substituted (for security reasons) 'dummy' info on submarines instead of what he did wind up writing...this is no concern of mine. They are writing fiction, in the first place. One is not supposed to rely on fiction for verifiable, real-world truths.

After all, in some cases--if an author were to include real data, it could lead to lives lost. So, my answer is no--as long as the book is convincing, it doesn't matter whether the story jibes with reality in every tiny respect.

As the aphorism goes: when it comes to a choice between telling the truth or telling the legend; tell the legend.

Feliks wrote: "Question, are you citing Fleming as an example of an author who was inaccurate or accurate?

Opinion: in general I don't care if a novel is factual or not. No one should, really. It matters the mo..."

I brought Fleming up as an author who seemed quite misinformed about many of the things he wrote about.

Felix - I guess I shouldn't have been surprised by your response since so many popular authors seem to write with a complete disregard for authenticating or even doing basic research on the topics about which they write. I guess this is just a personal pet peeve of my own. I simply can't read many espionage novels because I quickly run into parts of the books that are obviously completely inaccurate, illogical, and totally fabricated.

One particular pet peeve of mine is accuracy when discussing weapons. An author friend of mine wrote a quite successful novel that is filled with misinformation and downright inaccuracies regarding pistols and rifles. When I pointed these out to him and offered to help him in getting correct information on this topic into his future books, he blew me off and stated that he didn't feel that it was important. I have to admit that I was shocked by this attitude and for his not even being willing to make the least effort towards accuracy in his novels. I guess it's just a private neurosis on my part!

But Ian Fleming--if anyone--had the prerequisite of solid, real-life experience under his belt before he embarked on his career as an author.

What kinds of things of his, did you take issue with? The shoulder-holster incident? I put that down to Fleming's having been more an administrator than an agent in the field himself. After all, if we insist that every thriller author has to come only from the ranks of ex-commandos, the quality of the resultant writing would be very poor indeed.

I expect Fleming simply considered his audience to be competent enough to realize he was writing a form of parody and distortion---and to play along with him.

Naturally, when he imagined something as exotic as a 'garden of death' or a deadly rocket or a lurid assassin like Francisco Scaramanga--he wasn't expecting to be taken seriously.

My bottom line is this: while accuracy is a nice treat, a boon, a bonus--its not strictly necessary for good storytelling. We can't demand that every author who pens a story which features a death by poison, necessarily be an expert in poisons.

This is not to say though, that an author who writes a gunfight scene should be permitted to make basic, glaring mistakes about calibers and rounds and magazines. That's a different kettle of fish. No one is saying that authors can get away with laziness or sloppiness.

On the other hand, if you're an armaments expert and if some really picayune flaw from a fellow author riles you...then yes unfortunately that's your particular cross-to-bear. But the general audience can't be expected to trouble themselves--to any great degree--about such things....we live in a flawed world; 100% perfection is a hobgoblin.

Speaking of authenticity, I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I just discover Brad Thor's Scot Harvath series. I just finished two of his books, and am onto a third.

One of the things that really impresses me about this series is that the author really seems to portray the use of firearms very accurately. He's also pretty good on tactics, although Scot does seem to go solo a lot more than he should, especially when other team members are available. I'm more than willing to forgive this little indiscretion because of the otherwise high level of authenticity in the books.

I think Mr. Thor demonstrates quite well that you can create very compelling action novels while staying rooted in reality. I'm really happy to have discovered his works!

Michael
http://michaelconnick.com